Kirpal Kaur vs State of Punjab

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is a revision petition filed by Smt. Kirpal Kaur widow of Rajwant Singh (mother of Virender Singh, landowner) under section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, against the order dated 31.10.1977 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division in the surplus area case of Virender Singh (son of Rajwant Singh) landowner.

Brief facts of this case are that Virender Singh son of Rajwant Singh, resident of village Lakha Singhwala, tehsil Sirhind, owned and held 57.65 S. As. of land on 21.8.1956. The Collector Agrarian, Fatehgarh Sahib (Bassi), after necessary verification through the Naib Tehsildar Agrarian, came to the conclusion by his order dated 29.3.1961 that an area to the extent of 23.03 S. As. was surplus with this landowner. Against this order, the landowner went in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who by his order dated 17.2.1966 accepted it and remanded the case to the Collector. On remand, the Collector Agrarian, Nabha, ordered the restoration of land, which had been earlier declared surplus, by his order dated 2.1.1967, on the ground that the order dated 29.3.1961 of the Collector had been set aside by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, by his order dated 17.2.1966. Against this order, Sampuran Singh etc. went up in revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who dismissed it by his order dated 16.8.1967. After concluding proceedings in the surplus area case, the Collector Agrarian, Nabha by his order dated 23.7.1969 directed the issuance of final statement declaring 27.79 S. As. as surplus with the landowner. On 13.8.1969, the landowner filed objections against this final statement. The case, then, remained in process till 29.9.1975, when the Collector Agrarian, Nabha, declared 23.17 S. As. as surplus with the landowner. Against this order, the landowner again went up in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who accepted it by her order dated 30.8.1976 and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the transferees. Thereupon, the Collector Agrarian, Nabha, again got necessary verification made in respect of land to be determined as permissible area of the landowner and came to the conclusion that 21.28 S. As. of land was surplus with the landowner, and accordingly a fresh draft statement declaring that much land as his surplus area was issued, by his order dated 21.1.1977. Against this order, Smt Kirpal Kaur and Smt. Balwant Kaur (two mothers of Virender Singh, landowner) went in appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who by his order dated 31.10.1977, dismissed it as incompetent as no appeal lay against the issue of the draft statement. Against this order Smt. Kirpal Kaur (one of the two mothers of the landowner) has now come up in revision before me.

The Naib Tehsildar Agrarian, representing the State, has raised preliminary objections that the revision petition is barred by limitation by 807 days and also that it is not competent before the Financial Commissioner. So far as the point of limitation is concerned, the revision petition was admitted by my predecessor on 25.4.1980, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner who had stated that the petitioner, being a transferee was a necessary party and she had no knowledge of the order of the Commissioner, dated 31.10.1977. On the second issue, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case some apparent injustice has been meted out to the petitioner and she being a transferee should have been heard as of right by the Collector before the surplus area case of Virender Singh was finalised.

The counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the Commissioner on the ground that as the final draft statement in the surplus area case of Virender Singh had already been issued on 23.7.1969 and in the meantime the new Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 had come into existence, no fresh proceedings could be started under the Old Pepsu Act, 1955. He argued that the second draft statement issued on 28.1.1977 by the Collector Agrarian was therefore illegal in the eye of law. The other plea urged by the counsel is that the petitioner is the stepmother of the landowner and transfer of land to her before the commencement of the New Act as a nonprescribed relation was not hit under section 32FF of the Pepsu Act, 1955. He stressed therefore that the petitioner''s interests had been jeopardised by the issuance of second draft statement which could not be validly issued in the light of the earlier remand order dated 30.8.1976 of the Commissioner, Patiala.

I have heard the parties and looked into the record carefully. I find force in the pleadings of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the surplus area case of Virender Singh, his mothers Smt. Kirpal Kaur and Balwant Kaur, had agitated in appeal that the second draft statement, issued by the Collector Agrarian on 28.1.1977 was not warranted by law, after the commencement of the New Act, 1972. In view of the order dated 30.8.1976 remanding the case to the Collector to give an opportunity of being heard to the transferee, the impugned order dated 31.10.1977 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the second draft statement issued by the Collector Agrarian, Nabha, dated 28.1.1977 cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside in the light of remand order of the Commissioner, Patiala, dated 30.8.1976. Clearly it was not open to the Collector to reopen the entire case and issue a fresh draft statement at that stage.

For the reasons given above, order dated 31.10.1977 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division and the second draft statement issued on 28.1.1977 by the Collector Agrarian, Nabha are hereby set aside. The Collector Agrarian, Nabha will proceed to process the case according to law and pass a detailed order, after hearing the parties concerned. The parties present have been directed to appear before him on 18.7.1983.

Announced.